RHS7.756 Errata

[el cid again]

Cobra has uploaded a new Allied filmstrip for planes - so I need to issue the file set which points at the right art for the missing CIX-W (or whatever it is). The bitmap is 135.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

{Regarding carrier capable PBJ's}

IF we implemented it, Lex and Sara and Yorktown class ships should also be able to operate them - not just Essex. But Ranger and Wasp - not. CVL and CVE also not. That would require a house rule.

I'm skeptical about the Yorktown class ships specifically because of what I read and saw about the B-25's totally dominating Hornet's deck. I know the B-25' could take off, and land (at least room for some to land), but operating the other squadrons while the deck is obstructed by B-25's. Are you sure the Yorktown's could operate normally with B-25's (which is different than just launching them)?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I must confess I do not understand why you personally do not like this solution? I think it is so fine that - once it is understood by players - it will be so popular we will make it universal in all six scenarios. I would like to know what you think is better: if we do NOT combine the squadrons on these 3 ships - then either

a) we do not put the Marines and the B-25s on them

or

b) we force them into non-operational status.

I'll explain, but briefly because I do not want to hijack the thread.

There is an option "c)". I tested it and it works.

I leave the squadrons on the carrier in the more usual configuration (meaning 'traditional' in WITP terms). When the carrier leaves port, I fly a fifth squadron on board. Things work fine. Before the carrier makes port again, I fly off the fifth squadron. That way, the carrier can make port wherever I please (meaning I do not have to avoid ports with a theater HQ, such as Pearl Harbor, San Francisco, Brisbane, Batavia, Colombo, and maybe others).

Naturally, the 'fifth squadron' that I fly on board has to be at or below the appropriate size.

The reason that I favor option c) is that having the ability to make these ports is more important to me than a few additional ops losses due to the 'fifth squadrons' being only carrier capable rather than carrier trained.

It works for me.

I think it is so fine that - once it is understood by players - it will be so popular we will make it universal in all six scenarios.

Some players might like it, but I think that when players understand that their carriers cannot make port in so many key places (Pearl Harbor and San Francisco among them) - or can only do so at the cost of the combined DB squadron being re-sized to single size - they will dislike that method. I think most players will want the ability to disband their carriers into Pearl Harbor and San Francisco without losing half of their dive bombers.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

{Regarding carrier capable PBJ's}

IF we implemented it, Lex and Sara and Yorktown class ships should also be able to operate them - not just Essex. But Ranger and Wasp - not. CVL and CVE also not. That would require a house rule.

I'm skeptical about the Yorktown class ships specifically because of what I read and saw about the B-25's totally dominating Hornet's deck. I know the B-25' could take off, and land (at least room for some to land), but operating the other squadrons while the deck is obstructed by B-25's. Are you sure the Yorktown's could operate normally with B-25's (which is different than just launching them)?

There is no doubt your thinking is in the right ball park. No carrier with large twin engine aircraft (including Adm Byrd operating C-47s on ski's) was going to "operate normally" in the sense we think of for its regular squadrons. The problem is this: we play 24 hour (or even 2 and 3 day) turns. AFTER you fly off your big birds, why can you not resume flight ops? [You can - and Hornet did] If players do operate both types in the same day - it is probably acceptable.
But for "flavor" I do NOT do it that way: I stand down the non B-25 squadrons and ONLY fly it - operating Hornet with another carrier or two (just as IRL). I fly off the B-25s when I want to use Hornet normally. It "feels" right - even if it isn't technically necessary. No one can argue with it being fair anyway.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I must confess I do not understand why you personally do not like this solution? I think it is so fine that - once it is understood by players - it will be so popular we will make it universal in all six scenarios. I would like to know what you think is better: if we do NOT combine the squadrons on these 3 ships - then either

a) we do not put the Marines and the B-25s on them

or

b) we force them into non-operational status.

I'll explain, but briefly because I do not want to hijack the thread.

There is an option "c)". I tested it and it works.

I leave the squadrons on the carrier in the more usual configuration (meaning 'traditional' in WITP terms). When the carrier leaves port, I fly a fifth squadron on board. Things work fine. Before the carrier makes port again, I fly off the fifth squadron. That way, the carrier can make port wherever I please (meaning I do not have to avoid ports with a theater HQ, such as Pearl Harbor, San Francisco, Brisbane, Batavia, Colombo, and maybe others).

Naturally, the 'fifth squadron' that I fly on board has to be at or below the appropriate size.

The reason that I favor option c) is that having the ability to make these ports is more important to me than a few additional ops losses due to the 'fifth squadrons' being only carrier capable rather than carrier trained.

It works for me.

I think it is so fine that - once it is understood by players - it will be so popular we will make it universal in all six scenarios.

Some players might like it, but I think that when players understand that their carriers cannot make port in so many key places (Pearl Harbor and San Francisco among them) - or can only do so at the cost of the combined DB squadron being re-sized to single size - they will dislike that method. I think most players will want the ability to disband their carriers into Pearl Harbor and San Francisco without losing half of their dive bombers.

I have bad news. I tested extensively when working on this situation, and eventually I got help from others who confirmed what I was seeing.

While it LOOKS LIKE the squadrons are normal at first,

within 1 turn ALL FIVE squadrons reduce to 9 planes operational - period.

Otherwise I would use five squadrons on carriers. But Matrix programmers (two of them) say we cannot avoid this hard code unless it is ever rewritten.

And FYI six squadrons will reduce all to 0 operational planes. Seven squadrons are not possible.

[el cid again]

Closing this thread, we are uploading 7.757

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have bad news. I tested extensively when working on this situation, and eventually I got help from others who confirmed what I was seeing.

While it LOOKS LIKE the squadrons are normal at first,

within 1 turn ALL FIVE squadrons reduce to 9 planes operational - period.

Otherwise I would use five squadrons on carriers. But Matrix programmers (two of them) say we cannot avoid this hard code unless it is ever rewritten.

And FYI six squadrons will reduce all to 0 operational planes. Seven squadrons are not possible.

Sid,

When I tested this during our discussion (last week I think) it did not happen. After seeing your post, I just did 30 turns of testing. It did not happen. I have 30 save game files from the tests. I will email them to you if you want them. I will only send them if you ask because I do not want to spam your in-box. It is 45 megabytes in all so if you want it tell me what is the maximum size message your email allows. I'll split it up into multiple messages.

I was able to operate fine with 5 squadrons on board. I was also able to disband in a NON-theater command HQ port (I used San Diego) without the squadrons changing one bit.

I must stress that the safe way to do this is simply fly off the 5th squadron before the CV TF disbands in port (or at least in a theater command HQ command port).

...within 1 turn ALL FIVE squadrons reduce to 9 planes operational - period.

After 30 turns it did not happen. They all continued to function and conduct attacks.

[el cid again]

Well - of course there have been a number of updates to WITP since I did my testing. And there were a few threads expressing frustration at the situation. Perhaps someone said "if we are going to let 5 squadrons fly - why not let them fly?"

But the business about the fifth squadron must fly off is a mod killer all by itself. I don't like the facts of life - but the fact is the vast majority of games are played vs AI. AI won't know to do that. We can hardly build in something it must do.

What happens if you do NOT fly off the fifth squadron? Does it happen every time or just if a resize is triggered?

I think the whole issue is amazing: it took work to write restrictive code; it isn't historical; it would have been easier to just go with the size limit thing - if you put too many planes on the ship it does not fly. Why did they ever do it?
But it doesn't matter - they did. I certainly tried to run with five squadrons - and it certainly didn't work.

I will play with this after we get done with the shake down human testing. Surely other opinions about features and problems will be discovered.

Since carriers appear in ports I am not sure how one can have them appear with five squadrons and not be in port?
But what we really want is the ability to put five squadrons on a carrier without any chance of resize or other issue, port or not. Or even six - which code does handle in transport form already. Apparently there is a limit of six records per CV for embarked air units (possibly 6 pointer fields).

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
But the business about the fifth squadron must fly off is a mod killer all by itself. I don't like the facts of life - but the fact is the vast majority of games are played vs AI. AI won't know to do that. We can hardly build in something it must do.

But - you said RHS cannot be played with the AI running the Allies, and we are only talking about the USN carriers. [I know we should be able to do the right historical/alternate historical conjectural thing with all carriers, but the code limits us right now.]

What happens if you do NOT fly off the fifth squadron? Does it happen every time or just if a resize is triggered?

I actually tried to break things by putting a CV with 5 squadrons in Pearl Harbor and leaving it there to re-size. I expected things would break, but they didn't. There was a re-size, but it was minor and all 5 squadrons remained operational. However, I would not trust this - the viable method is fly off the 5th squadron before entering port. I suspect that eventually a drastic re-size would occur while in a theater HQ port with 5 squadrons. I saw no evidence of resizes at sea, or even in a non-theater HQ port. Hence the method "fly 'em off".

Since carriers appear in ports I am not sure how one can have them appear with five squadrons and not be in port?

True. The carrier appears with 4 squadrons. A 5th squadron is flown on when the carrier leaves port. If you have a 5th squadron appearing at the same time it simply appears at the corresponding airfield.

I think the whole issue is amazing: it took work to write restrictive code; it isn't historical; it would have been easier to just go with the size limit thing - if you put too many planes on the ship it does not fly. Why did they ever do it?
But it doesn't matter - they did.

Amen.